Here’s a curious argument against Growing Block. Other things being equal, it is better to receive goods earlier in life and to receive bads later in life if Growing Block theory is true. For the earlier you receive X in life, the larger the portion of your life during which X is a part of your life. For X becomes a part of your life at its time, and on Growing Block remains a part of your life forever.
Thus, if you live to 70, and eat a chocolate cake at age 10, then for the next 60 years you are alive with a life that includes that happy event. But if you eat the cake at age 50, then it is only for 20 years that you are alive with a life that includes that happy event.
On Growing Block, this seems to be a good reason to put good things earlier in life and bad things later. But surely one does not have such a reason! So, we have evidence against Growing Block.
4 comments:
Perhaps if we consider "X" as a significant traumatic event, such as childhood abuse, permanent loss of function, or loss of a parent, it would seem that there can be a good reason to prefer to have such bad events later in life.
Even if time is not a growing block, our memory is. So don't we already have a reason to weigh more strongly goods or bads early in life, because we remember them longer?
Aron: Sure, at least in the case of goods and bads that we actually remember. But so many goods and bads fade in our memory within a few days. I still remember the delicious donut I just had. Will I remember it in a week?
Indeed. I wonder, though, whether stacking this on top of growing block's added effect might not result in an excessive bias.
Post a Comment